More tedious metaethics

[Luke Weiger]

Michael wrote:
> >(2) As to the last half of your response, I'm confused.  We agree that
> >there is no special need to justify concern for human welfare as "good"
to
> >an absolute skeptic.  But what about the person who places some other
value
> >before welfare, while not denying that welfare is a good thing, all other
> >things being equal?

Justin wrote:
> Like me, for example. Or Rawls. We think that freedom and equality of
> opportunity and fairness is basic dsitribution are more important--Rawls,
in
> that order.

Let's not neglect to mention that some consequentialists believe in
incommensurable goods...  although they probably shouldn't.

-- Luke